Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background: and Purpose Treatments for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) such as eculizumab, ravulizumab, satralizumab, and inebilizumab have significantly advanced relapse prevention, but they remain expensive. Rituximab is an off-label yet popular alternative that offers a cost-effective solution, but its real-world efficacy needs better quantification for guiding the application of newer approved NMOSD treatments (ANTs). This study aimed to determine real-world rituximab failure rates to anticipate the demand for ANTs and aid in resource allocation. Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective study involving 605 aquaporin-4-antibody-positive NMOSD patients from 22 centers in South Korea that assessed the efficacy and safety of rituximab over a median follow-up of 47 months. Results: The 605 patients treated with rituximab included 525 (87%) who received continuous therapy throughout the follow-up period (median=47 months, interquartile range=15–87 months). During this period, 117 patients (19%) experienced at least 1 relapse. Notably, 68 of these patients (11% of the total cohort) experienced multiple relapses or at least 1 severe relapse.Additionally, 2% of the patients discontinued rituximab due to adverse events, which included severe infusion reactions, neutropenia, and infections. Conclusions This study has confirmed the efficacy of rituximab in treating NMOSD, as evidenced by an 87% continuation rate among patients over a 4-year follow-up period. Nevertheless, the occurrence of at least one relapse in 19% of the cohort, including 11% who experienced multiple or severe relapses, and a 2% discontinuation rate due to adverse events highlight the urgent need for alternative therapeutic options.

Background: and Purpose Treatments for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) such as eculizumab, ravulizumab, satralizumab, and inebilizumab have significantly advanced relapse prevention, but they remain expensive. Rituximab is an off-label yet popular alternative that offers a cost-effective solution, but its real-world efficacy needs better quantification for guiding the application of newer approved NMOSD treatments (ANTs). This study aimed to determine real-world rituximab failure rates to anticipate the demand for ANTs and aid in resource allocation. Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective study involving 605 aquaporin-4-antibody-positive NMOSD patients from 22 centers in South Korea that assessed the efficacy and safety of rituximab over a median follow-up of 47 months. Results: The 605 patients treated with rituximab included 525 (87%) who received continuous therapy throughout the follow-up period (median=47 months, interquartile range=15–87 months). During this period, 117 patients (19%) experienced at least 1 relapse. Notably, 68 of these patients (11% of the total cohort) experienced multiple relapses or at least 1 severe relapse.Additionally, 2% of the patients discontinued rituximab due to adverse events, which included severe infusion reactions, neutropenia, and infections. Conclusions This study has confirmed the efficacy of rituximab in treating NMOSD, as evidenced by an 87% continuation rate among patients over a 4-year follow-up period. Nevertheless, the occurrence of at least one relapse in 19% of the cohort, including 11% who experienced multiple or severe relapses, and a 2% discontinuation rate due to adverse events highlight the urgent need for alternative therapeutic options.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background: and Purpose Treatments for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) such as eculizumab, ravulizumab, satralizumab, and inebilizumab have significantly advanced relapse prevention, but they remain expensive. Rituximab is an off-label yet popular alternative that offers a cost-effective solution, but its real-world efficacy needs better quantification for guiding the application of newer approved NMOSD treatments (ANTs). This study aimed to determine real-world rituximab failure rates to anticipate the demand for ANTs and aid in resource allocation. Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective study involving 605 aquaporin-4-antibody-positive NMOSD patients from 22 centers in South Korea that assessed the efficacy and safety of rituximab over a median follow-up of 47 months. Results: The 605 patients treated with rituximab included 525 (87%) who received continuous therapy throughout the follow-up period (median=47 months, interquartile range=15–87 months). During this period, 117 patients (19%) experienced at least 1 relapse. Notably, 68 of these patients (11% of the total cohort) experienced multiple relapses or at least 1 severe relapse.Additionally, 2% of the patients discontinued rituximab due to adverse events, which included severe infusion reactions, neutropenia, and infections. Conclusions This study has confirmed the efficacy of rituximab in treating NMOSD, as evidenced by an 87% continuation rate among patients over a 4-year follow-up period. Nevertheless, the occurrence of at least one relapse in 19% of the cohort, including 11% who experienced multiple or severe relapses, and a 2% discontinuation rate due to adverse events highlight the urgent need for alternative therapeutic options.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background: Liver disease causes over two million deaths annually worldwide, comprising approximately 4% of all global fatalities. We aimed to analyze liver disease-related mortality trends from 1990 to 2021 using the World Health Organization (WHO) Mortality Database and forecast global liver disease-related mortality rates up to 2050. Methods: This study examined age-standardized liver disease-related death rates from 1990 to 2021, employing data from the WHO Mortality Database across 112 countries across five continents. The rates over time were calculated using a locally weighted scatter plot smoother curve, with weights assigned based on the population of each country. Furthermore, this study projected liver disease-related mortality rates up to 2050 using a Bayesian age-periodcohort (BAPC) model. Additionally, a decomposition analysis was conducted to discern influencing factors such as population growth, aging, and epidemiological changes. Results: The estimated global age-standardized liver disease-related mortality rates surged significantly from 1990 to 2021 across 112 countries, rising from 103.4 deaths per 1,000,000 people (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.16, 118.74) in 1990 to 173.0 deaths per 1,000,000 people (95% CI, 155.15, 190.95) in 2021. This upward trend was particularly pronounced in low- and middle-income countries, in Africa, and in populations aged 65 years and older.Moreover, age-standardized liver disease-related mortality rates were correlated with a lower Human Development Index (P < 0.001) and sociodemographic index (P = 0.001). According to the BAPC model, the projected trend indicated a sustained and substantial decline in liver disease-related mortality rates, with an estimated decrease from 185.08 deaths per 1,000,000 people (95% CI, 179.79, 190.63) in 2021 to 156.29 (112.32, 214.77) in 2050. From 1990 to 2021, age-standardized liver disease-related deaths surged primarily due to epidemiological changes, whereas from 1990 to 2050, the impact of population aging and growth became the primary contributing factors to the overall increase. Conclusion Global age-standardized liver disease-related mortality has increased significantly and continues to emerge as a crucial global public health issue. Further investigation into liver disease-related mortality rates in Africa is needed, and updating policies is necessary to effectively manage the global burden of liver disease.

Background: Liver disease causes over two million deaths annually worldwide, comprising approximately 4% of all global fatalities. We aimed to analyze liver disease-related mortality trends from 1990 to 2021 using the World Health Organization (WHO) Mortality Database and forecast global liver disease-related mortality rates up to 2050. Methods: This study examined age-standardized liver disease-related death rates from 1990 to 2021, employing data from the WHO Mortality Database across 112 countries across five continents. The rates over time were calculated using a locally weighted scatter plot smoother curve, with weights assigned based on the population of each country. Furthermore, this study projected liver disease-related mortality rates up to 2050 using a Bayesian age-periodcohort (BAPC) model. Additionally, a decomposition analysis was conducted to discern influencing factors such as population growth, aging, and epidemiological changes. Results: The estimated global age-standardized liver disease-related mortality rates surged significantly from 1990 to 2021 across 112 countries, rising from 103.4 deaths per 1,000,000 people (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.16, 118.74) in 1990 to 173.0 deaths per 1,000,000 people (95% CI, 155.15, 190.95) in 2021. This upward trend was particularly pronounced in low- and middle-income countries, in Africa, and in populations aged 65 years and older.Moreover, age-standardized liver disease-related mortality rates were correlated with a lower Human Development Index (P < 0.001) and sociodemographic index (P = 0.001). According to the BAPC model, the projected trend indicated a sustained and substantial decline in liver disease-related mortality rates, with an estimated decrease from 185.08 deaths per 1,000,000 people (95% CI, 179.79, 190.63) in 2021 to 156.29 (112.32, 214.77) in 2050. From 1990 to 2021, age-standardized liver disease-related deaths surged primarily due to epidemiological changes, whereas from 1990 to 2050, the impact of population aging and growth became the primary contributing factors to the overall increase. Conclusion Global age-standardized liver disease-related mortality has increased significantly and continues to emerge as a crucial global public health issue. Further investigation into liver disease-related mortality rates in Africa is needed, and updating policies is necessary to effectively manage the global burden of liver disease.